Clinton, Obama Coming to C’ville

The two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination for president will be coming to town, NBC 29 reports. Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have campaigned here already, but after last Tuesday’s primaries left the pair tied, next Tuesday’s primary here is suddenly mighty interesting to them. Obama’s campaign says that he’ll be in town on Sunday or Monday — no specific’s yet — while Clinton’s campaign confirms that she’ll be speak to Larry Sabato’s political science Introduction to American Politics class at UVa.

71 Responses to “Clinton, Obama Coming to C’ville”

  • Who wins MD, VA, and DC next week? I want Obama by a landslide, but I wonder what the politicos think.

  • I keep hearing about great speakers at Larry Sabato’s political science classes. I wonder if he accepts citizen scholars?

  • So, Clinton’s spending time talking to a bunch of students, most of whom are of another party, foreign or vote in a state that has already voted. Doesn’t seem all that wise to me. Then again, as an Obama supporter, I like that.

  • Makes for good press appearing in a friendly environment.

  • That is too bad if Hillary’s event is not open to the public. Sounds like it isn’t. But someone let us know if they hear something different. And also let us know if anyone hears specifics of Barack’s visit. That would be great to see each of them in person. I guess we can always go to Richmond or N. VA. if we really want.

    This certainly is looking to be an amazingly close race, most likely to be brokered at the convention. It looks like if Obama wins everything coming up except Texas and Ohio, my likely scenario, it will still be almost dead even. One or the other may have a 2 digit lead, but not much else. Then the big issue will be should the person with the highest number win, or should the person with the most states win, or should the person with the important national election states (e.g., NY, CA, OH, TX, FL, etc.) win. Tough call. But the important thing is that the #2 person needs to really support the winner and to help heal the differences. They shouldn’t underestimate Walnuts McCain.

  • Thinking strategically re: Hilary and Barack…

    Who energizes more conservatives (who might otherwise stay home with McCain heading the ticket)? Hilary

    Which one gets more of the other’s voters? Barack (He’ll win the so-called Blue states and might win some Red states.)

    Which one does more to secure the future of the Democratic Party? (Barack)

    Easy call, IMHO.

  • Yes yes. I know all this stuff. i can’t help agonizing over the questions of Clinton’s experience, and whether Americans are less (or more) likely to vote for a black man or a woman… For me it is all about ending the stranglehold on good governing that the republican administrations have held since Reagan, with a minor interruption by Clinto Gore until the republican revolution in Congress. That’s 2 years of relatively thoughtful governing since 1980, in my estimation. But yes Karl you state it simply. Thanks.

  • It just warms the cockles of my heart knowing that you liberal loons suffer from sleepless nights and migraine’s knowing that Greoge Bush is commander and chief of this great nation. I for one sleep very well at night knowing that our President Mr. Bush is on watch.
    Can hardly wait for the November election so that my single vote can cancel out one of you liberal democratic loons vote.

  • Yes Jogger and it warms the cockles of my heart knowing that on January 20, 2009 George W. Bush will get on that plane for Texas and we’ll never have to see that smirk again. He can go cut brush-since that’s obviously the only thing he’s good at.
    Hope to see you in DC when either Clinton or Obama will be sworn in and our eight year national nightmare will finally be over.
    What a grand day it will be.

  • I for one sleep very well at night knowing that our President Mr. Bush is on watch.

    Understand, though, that you’re a member of a small minority of Americans who feel this way. President Bush generally polls around 30%. The vast majority of Americans have lost all confidence in him.

  • Looks like Obama should win in VA (if we trust the polls) . . . the trick is can he rack up the majority needed to walk away with a ton of net delegates?

    For instance our little district of the 5th: 4 delegates, you need 62% to take 3 to 1, I think you need 69 for a shut out. Anything else makes it a split.

  • I will be joyful to vote for either Obama or Clinton in November although I believe Obama may be more electable.
    But even if McCain wins, this country will be better off than it has been for GWB’s presidency- we are about to escape from the stranglehold that incompetent neocons have had on America. I look forward to having a president who will uphold the Geneva Convention, at the very least.

  • just heard Mitch VanYahres passed away tonight. What a loss. What a true statesman he was.
    He will be missed.

  • Why, oh, why are we so content that sexism — someone else’s: never our own — is guiding our thinking on this? The code phrase is that Obama is more ‘electable’. The pundits make much, much, much of the fact that women are voting for Clinton; I’ve even heard it referred to as voting with our bras. The fact that men, and overwhelmingly white men at that, are voting for Obama is never referred to as voting with their jockstraps. We should not be surprised at this dynamic: white men handed the vote (in theory, anyway) to black men sixty-some years before they handed it to their mothers and daughters. I am one of three sisters; I have three daughters; women still earn only seventy-something percent of what men earn. I’m voting for Clinton. The ‘minority’ status of over half the population of the planet simply has to end.

  • “We should not be surprised at this dynamic: white men handed the vote (in theory, anyway) to black men sixty-some years before they handed it to their mothers and daughters.” When did all of this happen?
    “…women still earn only seventy-something percent of what men earn.” If Clinton becomes president, will she make less than Bush?

  • CvilleEye, did you not study American history? Black males got the vote via the 13th/14th/15th amendments back 1870. Women got the vote in 1920, via the 19th amendment.

  • I’m a woman and I’m voting for Obama. I think women in the U.S. (as well as everyone else) will be better off under an Obama presidency than under a Clinton presidency (though I’d be supportive of her if she gets the nomination). It matters more to me what kind of leader we have than what sex the leader is.

  • Thanks, Cecil, I didn’t feel like looking it up. Now, will Clinton make less than Bush?

  • Why, oh, why are we so content that sexism — someone else’s: never our own — is guiding our thinking on this? The code phrase is that Obama is more ‘electable’.

    Why, oh, why are we so content that racism — someone else’s: never our own — is guiding our thinking on this? The code phrase is that Clinton is more ‘electable’.

    Whee! :)

  • I am certainly a woman(middle aged/white). It is absurd to suggest that I am sexist if I vote for Obama in the primary (nor do I believe it is racist to vote for Clinton). I think Obama is more electable because he does not carry the baggage from the previous Clinton presidency which makes H. Clinton such a polarizing figure. And because he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. And because he is much younger than McCain so there will be a clear generational contrast in the general election. And because he is the most charismatic politician in decades.

  • Elizabeth,
    I was intending the word “electable” to have the dictionary meaning:”Having a reasonable chance of being elected”. Your assumption that I was deliberately using a “code phrase” is inaccurate.

  • I think it’s entirely possible to believe Obama is more electable than Clinton without having a sexist bias against women. I’m not sure I think BO is more electable–I hope he is, but I’m not sure. But to the extent that I think HC has drawbacks that threaten her electability, I don’t attribute those drawbacks to her sex. I think she’s totally polarizing, and IMO this country does not need any more polarization. I have seen no evidence that BO is a polarizing figure–there might be people who don’t like his plans and positions, but the level of vitriol directed at HC just isn’t there. I think we desperately need someone who can make people feel positively about our government.

  • I love that dems are following he repubs talking points about Hillary being polarizing and the like. It’s working like a dream. Maybe dems should think for themselves instead. For the life of me I can’t figure out where all the hate for Hillary comes from. Because she didn’t divorce Bill perhaps. Probably because she’s a powerful woman. Nothing scarier I guess.

    So back to my previous mention of healing the party after this is decided. I think the dems are in big big trouble already. Barack has already said he doesn’t think his supporters will vote for Hillary if she wins. And Michelle has said publicly that she’s not sure she’ll support Hillary if she wins. Perhaps that says something about character. And now this is effecting the polls. Before those statements came out, Hillary supporters overwhelmingly said they’d support Barack if he won. Now a new poll says 2/3’s of Hillary supporters would have a problem with Barack at the head of the ticket.

    So now I’m wondering if it’s too late and if the party can’t heal from this. Not unlike what Ted Kennedy did to the dems when he ran against Jimmy Carter after his first term. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be really wrong to artificially end the contest and pressure delegates to switch or for one candidate to step aside. In fact I think either of those would mark the end even more than bad feelings of the supporters. But there will be serious healing that needs to happen.

    Perhaps Huckabee will actually keep going like he is and force a convention contest for the repubs too. That could save the day.

    Hmm, I guess you can tell I’m a dem from all of that. :-)

  • Well, my LATEST unwritten letter to the editor was about just this question of Clinton’s negatives. Where do they come from? Does anybody really know? I only hear it stated as a fact, a cipher. More and more I think it is because people see her as a woman OUT OF PLACE. She was seen this way with the health care initiative back in 1993 (?), out of place running for the Senate, and out of place now. I am sorry if I touch nerves mentioning sexism and racism, but we must address these demons inside ourselves if we are to be real in this election. Again, I say job one is to remove the republicans from office, and decisively, so when they go to steal this election the vote won’t even be close.

  • Sorry, Brian. I don’t buy the “woman out of place” theory. I think that spin is coming from the Clinton campaign. The Obama phenomena has surprised a lot of folks. It’s real. His appeal is broader than HC’s. She arrives on the scene with all the pluses and minuses of the Bill Clinton’s 8 years in the White House.

    Come summertime we will get behind whichever of the two is the nominee. Right now, though, we should go with candidate we think will do more good for the country as president, the one with the greatest chance of winning (especially in states like VA, which Democrats don’t typically win), and the candidate with the longest coattails, as control of the House and Senate will matter greatly to either the Obama or Clinton administration.

  • I know why I don’t like her: because of how she waltzed into New York state and got herself elected senator without ever having lived there. I lived most of my life in upstate New York, and I feel like she used the people of New York to achieve her ultimate goal of the presidency. Yes–the people of New York elected her, but the population of NY is 18 million and 8 million of them live in New York City, so in any federal election, the wishes of the downstaters prevail. We live in Virginia now because upstate New York is such an economic disaster, even a someone in a highly desirable field like my husband’s can’t find a job there. It was a disaster long before she ever became senator, so I can’t blame her for that, but it is a disaster still and every time we return to New York, it looks even more shabby and depressing than the last time we were there.

  • Yeah, I lived 8 years in the Rochester area, and although I left in 1984, it still feels like home in many ways. And I grew up in Brooklyn. The differences between up and downstate are real. Patience tells the truth here about the economc downturn of Upstate, and speaks to a sentiment that many feel about Clinton.
    I still feel that there is some element of what I described earlier going on Karl. I don’t pay much attention to the Clinton campaign info. It’s my own feeling.

    I do wonder if people feel that she had her time when Bill was in the white house, and that that’s enough.

  • Does anyone know why HC didn’t return to Illinois when she wanted to find a state to live in from which to pursue her senatorial goals? Did she ever consider it? I’m just curious–she would have run into Obama much earlier if she had.

    For me, I like HC well enough–I think her commitments and priorities are in the right places, I think she’s quite smart and well-read on a variety of issues, etc. If Obama had never come along, I’m sure I’d be voting for her over someone like Edwards or Richardson, but I never would have felt excited about her. And I do believe that the deep rancor that many, many people feel for her is real; it’s not a trick of the Republicans, or a talking point. It’s real; many people just see red when they hear her name. I don’t know what exactly to attribute that rancor to, but I think it’s beside the point to debate why many people loathe her. The fact is they do, and if she’s elected it will simply be a reversal of the current polarities: many Americans will be happy with the president but a significant chunk will feel the way I do when I see George Bush’s smirky face. (Of course, I believe I have well-founded reasons for my rancor!)

    And even though if HC were president I’d be on the happy side for the first time in a long time, I feel like that’s not good enough for the country. I don’t want the polarities simply reversed so I’m on top finally and all those maddening people with “Bush/Cheney 04” bumper stickers are shut out. I want a president whom everyone, even those who voted for the other party, can at least listen to respectfully and consider the merits of his/her positions. That won’t happen with HC: too many people will have their fingers jammed in their ears for four years. I believe that an Obama and maybe even a (gasp) McCain could be people that won’t continue to polarize such large groups of people (I do recognize that stone-cold racists will loathe Obama and hard-core wingnuts will loathe McCain, but those two groups are smaller in numbers than the group that loathes Hillary).

    It’s a bummer and a raw deal for her, to be sure, but I can’t vote her just because “it’s time” for a woman to be president or because it might mend the Democratic Party somehow.

  • I’m assuming HC chose to run in New York because in 2000, Daniel Patrick Moynihan decided not to run again for senator, leaving a spot conveniently open for her. I don’t know if there was an Illinois senator up for re-election in 2000.

  • As we see from these messages, there is a lot of passion for the two dem candidates. That makes me worry a bit. I hope the race is resolved in a way that seems fair. If Barack wins everything until TX, OH, and PA, but Hillary wins those, she will win fair and square, since those three states have more delegates than all of this month combined. But I’m not sure the Barack followers will feel that way. If Hillary loses at least two of those three states, then Barack will win fair and square. Of course the big worry is if things are in between and are too close at the end, and then the super delegates end up deciding in a brokered convention. That could cause bad feelings to be sure.

    I’ll come clean here. I’m a Hillary supporter. I’ve tried my best to like Barack. I really have. I’d like to be one of the emotional, enthralled followers. I would. I listen to the speeches. But I don’t hear him say anything. I see the zealous followers and think maybe I’m missing something. He is for change, what ever that means. He has some dreams. And he believes something or other. And yes, I guess we can, something. But I just don’t get it. Maybe I just don’t pray hard enough. After all, it does come across a bit on the religious movement side of things. Hey, I guess that makes me a heathen.

    OK, a bit heavy on the sarcasm. But the “movement” does scare me a bit.

    Cheers. And peace. Especially to all those Barack followers who might outnumber us unbelievers.

  • You know I am really getting tired of these “Obama cult” statements and insinuations. People like him because he is inspiring, allows people to hope that something better can be done in Washington AND because of where he stands on the issues. He is not lacking substance as many Clinton supporters and those in the media claim. If you go to his website he has several plans for what he would like to do. I compared his and Hillary’s sites and I see no wide disparity between the information on what she is proposing and what he is proposing. Unfortunately, this is part of a clever political tactic. You take the strength of someone and turn it into a weakness. Obama is a great orator so what does the opposition do? They say things like “sure he is a great speaker but we need substance as well.” They don’t know any of his details because quite frankly they aren’t looking for any. While we are on the subject, please tell me how specific Hillary has been while she has been on stump. She says things like “we need to get out of Iraq” and “I want universal health care” without anymore specifics than Obama but somehow she is the “substance candidate.” Give me a break.

    I think in the end, both of the candidates want the same things. I support Obama because 1.) I believe he can get those things done 2.) he brings fresh ideas and politics to Washington 3.) quite frankly, he is just more likable 4.) he is more electable 5.) I worry about our Democratic majorities in Congress. I can go into detail about these but I just want you all to consider this in strategic terms as well. Rasmussen conducted a poll in December to determine the core opposition and support of each candidate. You know which candidate had the highest number of voters say they will definitely vote against them? It was Hillary Clinton. Forty-seven percent of all Americans and forty-eight percent of unaffiliated voters said they definitely will NOT vote for her (Rasmussen Poll December 22, 2007). How much sense does it make for us to nominate a candidate with such a high level of core opposition? Then there are the string of recent polls that consistently show McCain leading or tying with Clinton but trailing Obama by a few points(Real Clear Politics). The reason? Independents favor Obama in a McCain-Obama match up but favor McCain in a Clinton-McCain contest. I do not understand why Democrats like making things harder than they need to be. I really do like Hillary but I do not think she is the right person at this time. The nation has been bitterly divided for seven years now. I just think its time to move on and stop fighting the battles of the past.

  • Hmm, “he brings fresh ideas” but you say his ideas are about the same as Hillary’s. Doesn’t quite make sense. Not so fresh since Hillary’s been pushing for most of these ideas for years. She wants universal health care, he does not. I read the plans too. They are both a bit general, but enough detail to understand.

    As for polls, let’s get real here. Barack is still a rock star with all the benefits of that freshness and newness. It will wear out really quickly once the rove machine starts in on him. Remember, his only test against national republicans to date has been against Alan Keyes. Don’t kid yourself, the repubs are waiting in the weeds (to quote Buchanan) for Barack to win and then they’ll pounce like you’ve never seen before. Maybe Barack can handle it, maybe he can’t. We know Hillary can handle it.

    By the way, “the nation doesn’t want to be divided” is another republican talking point. The 2006 election was all about being less united (behind Bush) and having accountability. The second that election was over the republicans started spinning the opposite. Looks like they took you in.

    Yes, Barack inspires hope. There’s another candidate that was untested without much experience who a lot of people liked and who inspired hope and inspired people that the country would be run with integrity and would unite and not divide. How’s that been working out for you.

  • DandyTiger wrote, “Yes, Barack inspires hope. There’s another candidate that was untested without much experience who a lot of people liked and who inspired hope and inspired people that the country would be run with integrity and would unite and not divide. How’s that been working out for you.”

    That comment really, really turns me off, and since it was written by a Hillary supporter, by extension it turns me off Hillary just a little bit more than I was before. I know that’s not rational, but that is how human beings work (emotionally, associatively). I’ll be able to look past comments like that and vote for Hillary in November if need be, but the implication that Obama is anything like Bush is pretty distasteful.

  • Character. Integrity. Experience. Leadership. Who exemplifies these the best among the candidates? JOHN McCAIN!!
    He went through hell as a POW in Hanoi. None of the others can say they had a similar experience.
    Do we wamt people like the Democlowns on our City Council running the country?
    -one who USED to believe the liberal bs nonsense.

  • It Truly Scares me That So Many People Think Clinton Has What It Takes. Very, Very Weird….JC

  • Hmm, so we shouldn’t vote for Barack because he might not be able to withstand Republican attacks? I think he can. So far with the Clintons, their attacks have made his candidacy stronger. The guy is smart. It’s killing the Clintons that he has more star power–that’s new for them. Barack is rewriting the rules of politics, and I like the new score. Dandy, aren’t you even a little curious what it would be like to have have a president who didn’t take a dime from the lobbyists? I can’t wait. (Oh, and long as we are talking team here: I want Michele Obama, too. If you have any questions about his character because he seems too charismatic, look to her. She’d be the best First Lady we ever had. New century, new politics, new country. Can’t wait.

  • “Hmm, “he brings fresh ideas” but you say his ideas are about the same as Hillary’s. Doesn’t quite make sense.”

    It makes perfect sense. The ideas I am talking about include working together and not demonizing the other side. These aren’t new ideas in theory but I believe he may be one of the first candidates to actually do it. Obama doesn’t believe Republicans are the enemy or that you need to “fight” them. If someone declared me the enemy and someone said they needed to fight against me, I would dig my heels in too. This is part of the reason why I think there will be partisan gridlock under a Clinton administration.

    “Not so fresh since Hillary’s been pushing for most of these ideas for years. She wants universal health care, he does not. I read the plans too. They are both a bit general, but enough detail to understand.”

    I assume the first part refers to health care. Look, I think this is just as much of a negative as a positive. The point is that she has been in Washington for years. Also, the idea that Obama doesn’t want everyone to be covered by health insurance is ridiculous. He wants to lower costs so everyone can get it rather than issuing another federal mandate.

    “It will wear out really quickly once the rove machine starts in on him. Remember, his only test against national republicans to date has been against Alan Keyes. Don’t kid yourself, the repubs are waiting in the weeds (to quote Buchanan) for Barack to win and then they’ll pounce like you’ve never seen before. Maybe Barack can handle it, maybe he can’t. We know Hillary can handle it”

    Another Clinton tag line. Look, if Obama can do well against the Clinton machine then he will do fine in the general. They have literally dug up things from when he was five years old. Whatever is out there to throw at Obama, the Clintons already have it and used it. Rezko, drugs, and kindergarten essays, anything else? Some have argued that Obama doesn’t have what it takes to win because he may not be strong enough. Clinton is allegedly this political expert who has taken all they have thrown at her and still stands. Obama is accused of being this political novice who is naive about the process. Well, what does it say about Clinton when she can barely fend off (and possibly lose to) someone who is supposed to be so inferior to her when it comes to political skill and know-how?

    “Yes, Barack inspires hope. There’s another candidate that was untested without much experience who a lot of people liked and who inspired hope and inspired people that the country would be run with integrity and would unite and not divide. How’s that been working out for you.”

    You know people said the same thing about Lincoln but I am assume you are not talking about him. This “experience” argument is lacking in so many ways. First of all, when it comes to elected experience, Obama has more. He has over ten years of elected, legislative experience compared to Hillary’s seven. What qualifies as experience for Hillary? Her being First Lady? So I guess if Laura Bush wins a Senate seat and holds it for a few years you would deem her as “experienced” enough to be president as well right? Prior to that, Hillary served several boards and practiced law. Prior to Obama’s time in the Illinois Senate he was a community organizer and practiced law. Again, your “experience” argument falls flat.

    Oh, and while we answering questions, do you remember the last time Hillary was in the White House pushing her universal health care plan? The Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress, were relegated to minority status in the House for well over a decade and there was still no universal health care. It was one of the biggest policy failures in recent history yet people are touting it as some great achievement. We have seen what the Clintons and Bushes can do for the past twenty years. Let’s give someone else a chance.

  • From Cecil: “And I do believe that the deep rancor that many, many people feel for her is real; it’s not a trick of the Republicans, or a talking point. It’s real; many people just see red when they hear her name. I don’t know what exactly to attribute that rancor to, but I think it’s beside the point to debate why many people loathe her.”

    I can’t tell you why everyone who has a hate-on for HC holds her in such contempt, I can only tell you what one acquaintance of mine said on the subject. He has despised her since the health-care debacle in the first term of BC’s administration, because he feels she attempted to co-president with Bill. In his opinion, she didn’t have the right–she wasn’t elected to a position, she wasn’t even appointed to a an administrative position, and yet she stuck her hands into the policy-making end of the President’s business. To sum his feelings up: A pushy, arrogant, opportunistic broad who liberally short-cuts around protocol and process without even seeing a reason to ask “by-your-leave.” Therefore, he doesn’t trust her one millimeter.

    Caveat: I vastly disagree with his assessment of HC’s character and worth, but now I do kind of understand why he has it.

  • Broad? I think I’ll have to ask my mother when people stopped saying broad. Maybe she knows.

    I had a discussion with a friend this weekend about Clinton vs. Obama. He didn’t say ‘broad’, but the woman issue was touched upon in a similar way.

    Cheney wasn’t elected either, or Rove, but they certainly have ‘pushed their ways around the executive branch. I guess they arent broad minded enough to garner this type of hatred. Not that I don’t hate them, just not for being broads.

  • When Hillary says she’s the one with the most experience, it becomes fair game to look carefully at what that experience is. First Lady is a title, not a job. (Note to Brian: Cheney was elected VP–albeit through an election decided by a Republican Supreme Court; and Rove was appointed to a WH job.) Hillary didn’t draw a paycheck, did she?

    When Hillary says she’s ready to roll up her sleeves on day one, she’s implying that Barack would need help finding the light switch to the Oval office. That’s a pretty annoying swipe at a guy who has put together (in less than a year) one of the best campaigns modern politics has seen. I think he’s ready for the job on day one.

    Both candidates are very smart, both would be a huge welcome relief to what we have. My issue with Hillary is narrow (vs broad): are her negatives too high for her to either 1. get elected or 2. be effective?

    I was a big supporter of the last Clinton presidency. I’m tired of the Clintons. If that’s how I’m feeling, I worry that news across the nation will be much worse.

  • If Hilary gets the nomination, I’ll vote for her, but I’m not fond of her. It doesn’t have anything to do with her being a woman, or even her role in the Clinton Presidency, but rather just that she’s not progressive enough.

    I find it ironic that many conservatives paint her as the flagbearer for the liberal movement, when she’s much more conservative in practice than people acknowledge. She’s deeply tied into the current system, and the corporate influences that come with it. She has her pet issue of health care, and I do expect her to accomplish something, but not before making major consessions to the Pharmaceutical industry. She also played a role in downplaying global warming as an issue, and I suspect that like her husband she’ll be more than willing to sign away our natural heritage to logging and mining interests. Frankly, while I see her as causing far less harm than the current idiot, and while I even suspect she may do a little good, I just don’t feel excited about her as a candidate.

    It was really telling when Rush Limbaugh said he’d sooner vote for Hilary than McCain. It almost made me consider voting Republican if McCain gets the nomination. That said, I’m nauseated by the “Who’s the Biggest Conservative” debate. I’d prefer McCain just ask the others directly exactly what they are conserving and leave it at that. His failure to do so means that I’ll vote for the Dem of choice, which hopefully will be Obama.

  • RE: the “pushy broad” thing — yes, it’s a retrograde reaction to a strong-minded woman, yes, it’s irrational, yes, it’s antifeminist, yes, it’s wrong to object to Hillary on those grounds. But that’s what many people are like — retrograde, irrational, antifeminist. It sucks for Hillary and it’s certainly not fair, but electing her president isn’t going to make those feelings go away, and those feelings WILL get in the way of any truly national consensus on any of her projects or issues.

    Also, for me, she lost me when she co-sponsored the bill banning flag-burning. Please note: I have never burned a flag, have no plans to burn a flag, don’t particularly want to see anyone burn a flag. But co-sponsoring that bill was pandering, pure and simple, to the right. Once I saw that she was capable of that, I lost a lot of my respect for her.

  • From Cecil:
    “the ‘pushy broad’ thing — yes, it’s a retrograde reaction to a strong-minded woman, yes, it’s irrational, yes, it’s antifeminist, yes, it’s wrong to object to Hillary on those grounds.”

    Is it wrong to object to anyone on those grounds? In his opinion, HC lacks any kind of integrity, so he calls her a “broad.” I wouldn’t vote for a leader I think lacked integrity. And this guy doesn’t call all, or even many, women “broads”–just the ones who offend him. You can object to the use of the word “broad” if you wish (it was his, not mine, and that’s why I included it), but this is not a man who would object to a woman president on principle–he’d vote for Condi Rice in a heartbeat.

  • Also, for me, she lost me when she co-sponsored the bill banning flag-burning.

    Bingo. Me, too. I was fully aboard the Hillary Clinton bandwagon until she pulled that move. That convinced me that her “political viability” was more important that principle.

    I wonder how much support she picked up on the other side as a result of that move?

  • That’s the maddening thing, Harry; I doubt it bought her much support from the kind of people who lobby for an anti-flag-burning amendment. They still think she’s the anti-Christ.

    It was that move that made me feel she’d throw me/my concerns under the bus if she felt it was expedient. Kind of like Bill did with gays and lesbians early in his administration.

  • Thanks to intrepid reporter Deepak Singh, the Charlottesville Podcasting Network was able to record Clinton’s appearance at Old Cabell Hall today. Follow the link and there are additional links to her previous appearance, as well as Senator Obama and Representative Kucinich’s visits to town.

  • The discussion seems to have meandered around to prove my point. A stunningly large amount of the anti-Hillary (non)sense trickles down from when ‘she’ grabbed onto healthcare. She was appointed to do so by a person well equipped to know her skills. Despite that, she has proven herself by election and re-election as a senator. Obama is a stunning orator: that was clear four years ago, but it isn’t a skill to elect a president on. After all, communications was Reagan’s forte as well.

    Gender equality is massively important for everyone. Women earning less impacts all families. After divorce, men’s standard of living rises and women’s and children’s lowers. Yet in this blog we have diatribes against the supposed huge number of $4000 per month alimony recipients who are apparently legion. Anecdotes trump statistics. White men have had in their possession the rights of others for centuries and when the others say ‘may we have our rights back, please’ we witness the backlash we see against Hillary — among other things. As a child, I thought the women’s lib movement ridiculous because OF COURSE we would pay equally for equal work, etc, etc, etc. I know better now. It’s been nearly have a century that I individually have slogged through this ridiculous mire and I see my daughters beginning to have to slog themselves. No one is better off with the status quo or the oblique permission that others may be as prejudiced as they like. It is far to important. Nothing else changes in useful ways until this one does.

  • Elizabeth,

    While having a woman a president will effectively show that women can indeed do anything, I doubt it’ll bring upon the golden age of womens’ rights that you expect. For that matter, I don’t expect Obama will create racial equality all across the country either if he wins. Both candidates got were they are by working the system, and because of that they’ll still be part of that system when elected.

    I’d personally love to see a woman president, and I do feel that it is about time that we have one; however, it is equally important that we have a good one. After all, what if her administration is a flop? If so, it could effectively do more to harm women’s rights than help. Or, perhaps she’ll just demonstrate that women can be just as conservative and foolish as men. For example, would you want the American version of Margaret Thatcher?

    That’s why I feel we shouldn’t elect candidates based on either race or gender, but rather their politics, and whether or not we feel they’ll faithfully represent us. I’ll vote for Obama, not because he’s black, but frankly because I know where Hillary really stands on issues like the environment, and I think we can do without someone who’ll give in to corporate pressure or the whims of conservatives. The point about banning flag burning is an excellent one. The first amendment is no small issue, and one she’d be reponsible for defending that if president. Could we trust her after that?

  • I received a phone message from my sister-in-law in No. VA reminding me and my wife to vote for Obama today. (We’d talked about the primary at Thanksgiving.) This is someone who voted for Bush twice. She’s making calls to Wisconsin on Obama’s behalf. I am a bit floored by this, actually. When Barack Obama talks about uniting red and blue states, I am seeing that in my own family. I think we need to take that ability of very seriously, if change is what we want.

  • “While having a woman a president will effectively show that women can indeed do anything,…” Didn’t Margaret Thatcher show that two decades ago?

  • “While having a woman a president will effectively show that women can indeed do anything,…” Didn’t Margaret Thatcher show that two decades ago?

    No. That was like a whole other country or something. There have been a lot of world leaders that have been women. But not in the US. Looks pretty pathetic and embarrassing. Show me a powerful women in the US, and I’ll show you a majority of US men that will call her a b*tch. Sexism runs deep in the US.

    The other thing that’s truly embarrassing is that we’re one of the only 1st world nations not to have universal health care. And the fact that many americans like that and fight against it is truly stunning.

    Perhaps the best wake up call/protest pro Clinton women could do if Barack wins the dem nomination is to stay home and not vote in the general election. The women vote has been taken for granted in the dem party for too long. There, I said it.

  • Yes, she did, but Americans, for some odd reason, don’t seem to take anything seriously until we do it for ourselves. As much as I disagree with it, arguing that we should emulate Europe on any issue is generally political suicide.

    I should also mention that English conservatives are very different than our home grown ones, especially on issues like the environment. In all fairness, an American version of Thatcher would be more likely to be like Ann Coulter. Nonetheless, Clinton is hardly liberal in any sense of the word. The fact that Limbaugh and others would prefer her to McCain is very telling.

  • Who is the woman running the House? I’ve heard her called a liberal but nothing much else.
    As far as universal health care, people think of the success of government-run programs such as public housing, food stamp, VA hospitals, FEMA trailers, Social Security solvency, medicaid fraud, and Aid to Dependent Children and Needy Families programs and get scared away. They really don’t trust a bureaucrat who’s just looking for a monthly paycheck or a politician who doesn’t appear to be looking at all with something as important as their health. Mental health facilities and programs are still reeling from political cutbacks in the seventies to the extent that so many of their clients are either homeless or in jail. Of course, those without some form of health coverage see it differently.

  • Lonnie, my point was that Thatcher showed she could lead a country for many years and therefore I would assume that there is a woman somewhere who can run this country as well as it has been by most, if not all, men in modern times.

  • You know, I take back what I said about staying home if Barack wins. I went a bit too far on that one. I was caught up in the emotions of the moment. Especially with the recent wins by Barack. I should take heart in the recent AP poll that has Hillary at 46% and Barack at 41% among dems. So the majority is still with her in the dem side of the country as a whole. Here’s a good quote to take to heart from

    I will say this bluntly – any person who claims to be a Democrat who will vote Clinton but not Obama, and vice versa, are in a cult of personality and do not deserve to be called Democrats. Such an attitude is simply disgraceful.

    Well said. We should try to heal the divide after the primaries are over. After all, McCain will be more of the same. If you or anyone you know will vote for McCain over Hilary or Barack, there’s something seriously wrong with them.

  • Do you mean Nancy Pelosi? If she was running for president, then she’d be far more likely to get my vote.

    Of course women can lead a country. I’m not even arguing that point. Heck, one could argue that Boudica proved that almost 2000 years ago. I was just responding to Elizabeth’s point that Americans would benefit from first hand proof of the fact. I know alot of people that feel the same as she does, and truthfully, it would be more meaningful for me to be able tell my daughter “You can be president” if there was actually at least one example to back it up. Nonetheless, just because someone is a woman doesn’t mean she’ll suddenly usher in a golden age of equality. I certainly don’t expect that of Clinton, as she has way to many friends on the other side of the aisle.

    Now, I could see a real argument that her bipartisan efforts mean that she’ll get more done than Obama, but it also means that in practice she’s going to compromise on a whole lot of issues in ways that liberals and progressives won’t necessarily appreciate. I actually suspect the same of Obama, but at least there’s some reasonable chance for real change. Clinton is a known quantity and it’s obvious to me that, at best, she’ll just bring the Country back to where it was Pre-bush. Maybe that’s exactly what we need, but can you blame me for wanting more?

  • I know zero leftist/Democrats who would sit out the election if their preferred candidate did not win the nomination–the idea that statistically significant numbers of pro-Clinton Dems will boycott the general election if BO gets the nomination (or vice versa) is beyond fictional, to me. I don’t think anyone on the left should be trying to scare others on the left into voting for their candidate with this kind of an idle threat.

    It’s way more likely that some Reps will sit out the general election if McCain gets the nomination–that’s why I’m hearing from the Reps/conservatives that I listen to. But for the Dems, this election is the thing we’ve been waiting for for eight years. I can’t imagine any Dem sitting and pouting in November.

  • Ditto on that. I can’t see Dems sitting this one out, but I can see some Republicans doing that, and all the better for us. I’ll vote for Clinton over McCain in a heartbeat, but I do take a great pleasure at seeing Republican evangelicals and conservatives squirm at the potential of a McCain nomination.

  • Hello all. Just back from work, and VOTING. i was number 1008 on the democratic side at downtown rec center. The republican numbers were in the 200s. That’s nice to see.

    I see that all discussion topics are still open here. This is what I did. Sometime yesterday I decided that while I feel that Cinton is reaping more anti-woman stuff than Obama is racist stuff, and that this sucks, still he would be the stronger candidate to put up in November. I’ve been waiting not 8 years for this, but 27. Democrats have been on the defensive since Reagan, and the voter surrender to mindless obedience closely coincides with Morning in America, Shining City on the Hill, Kinder Gentler Nation, Compassionate Conservatism, whatever. All this right wing hippie stuff, this trusting in the good shepherd president. It comes down to rich are richer, poor are poorer, we are killing innocents by the thousands, and so long as somebody doesn’t really rattle that cage, Americans will let it go on. Go vote. And then work to help fix this broken dream.

  • Here here Brian. Well said. Well except for which would be the stronger candidate; of course Hillary would be. :-) But well said. Time to go vote!

  • This has been fun, neighbors. It’s Barack today, and either Barack or Hillary in November. Big day at the polls all over the state, apparently. Go, Democrats.

  • I voted this morning for Barack because I believe we need a fresh face in the white house. It is difficult to see republicans listening to Hillary after years of holding her in contempt. On that note I talked with two friends of mine (married couple) who I would describe as young Christian republicans and was pleased to find that they were supporting Obama. Her mother also voted today for Obama this morning and it is the first time she has EVER cast a ballot for a democrat. Isn’t it wonderful how excited everyone is about this election?

  • Here’s an interesting blog entry by a right winger, heritage foundation guy on why he’s voting for Barack and hoping he wins the dem nomination: A peak at the view of the right. At least the few that are showing their hand and talking. Here’s a bit from that entry:

    …it’s partly for this reason that I decided to cast my vote for Barack Obama today. Although national polls give Obama a small advantage over John McCain in the general election, I firmly believe that McCain would handily defeat the inexperienced Obama. Secondly, I fear what the Clinton attack machine would do to McCain…

    Hopefully just a bunch of hot air.

    It sure looks like Barack will sweep this month. TX, OH, and PA will decide it all it seems. Hopefully we’ll let the voters decide and we won’t hear any babyish talk about Hillary pulling out before the vote is counted.

  • Here’s a nice breakdown of the votes per county:

    All I can say is ouch. That smarts. This should put Barack 20 or so delegate points above Hillary. Yep, still a virtual tie. But wait until TX, OH, and PA for the big turn around.

  • I love looking at these breakdowns. Anyone have an explanation for why SW Virginia went so Hillary? For example, Obama got just 16 percent of the democratic vote in Wise County.

  • Early Prediction:

    Barack Vs McCain

    Barack Wins By A Fairly Close Margin.

  • Hmm–when I saw that BO got 9% in Buchanan County, my first thought was that it was because he’s black, and that county (like some of its neighbors) is like 97% white.

    Please note: I’m not saying they’re all Klan members or outright racists, but rather that it’s not a terribly diverse county/area and therefore they might not be comfortable with an African American candidate. I wonder what the turnout was like in those counties, relative to past turnout in those counties — did turnout balloon down there like it did up here?

  • I wondered the same thing. I also wonder if a lot of the Hillary “supporters” in those counties are actually conservatives who think their candidate will have a better chance of beating her in November than Obama.

    I’ve never been to the farthest reaches of SW VA; all I know about them is that they are very white and generally very poor compared to central VA, Hampton Roads and northern VA. I would have expected them to perceive Hillary as elitist, but perhaps they see her as someone who could bring economic change more so than Obama.

    This is the same area where Allen got a laugh from the crowd for his “macaca” comment a year and a half ago. But didn’t that county wind up going blue in the governor’s race three months later?

  • That’s why I’m wondering about turnout — I realize I’m dealing in unfair stereotypes here, but I would imagine that the SW Virginia white voter isn’t as enthused about choosing between a woman and black guy as your typical Charlottesville liberal is. Turnout would be high where people are enthused and relatively low where people are less enthused. If turnout in SW Virginia didn’t balloon as high as turnout in other parts of VA, I would suspect that even the Dems down there were not as thrilled about the diversity of our candidates as I was, for example.

    Please note: I realize that “enthuse” is a travesty of diction and should never be used in polite company.

  • From the Roanoke Times (

    “Obama won half of the white vote in Virginia, the highest percentage of any Southern state so far. He overpowered Clinton in the state’s suburban, affluent and university communities and areas with strong black voting populations, but he was also winning in many lower-income, working class and rural areas where Clinton had expected to do well.”

    That seems to disprove my Clinton=elitism theory.

    Cecil, you’re right, just from glancing at numbers for a few counties, it appears the turnout for the democratic primary in those SW VA counties that went for Hillary was around 10 percent, compared to 26 or 27 percent in Albemarle and Fairfax County, 20 percent in military-conservative Virginia Beach, 31-33 percent in Cville and 34-36 percent in Richmond (not sure why the SBE website gives you two figures). Unfortunately the SBE Republican breakdown by city/county link isn’t working so can’t compare there.

  • Just a hat tip to you C’Ville folk. Smart, civilized and informed. I wish I could cut and paste this thread onto every post board and news article out there. I am an Obama supporter, but I appreciate the polite (and informed) exchange by both camps here! I was just monday morning quarterbacking the Potomac Primaries in advance of the Aloha-Cheese Primaries and stumbled upon this. I spent two years in C’ville and am still impressed by the quality people there.

Comments are currently closed.